If you dig into the data that is referenced on this article, it takes you to this: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DC ... Cases.aspxcardinalkarp wrote: ↑August 21 21, 11:30 amIm reading that as of the 6,587 Covid-19 breakthrough cases as of July 26, 6,239 required hospitalizations and out of those 6,587 there were 1,263 deaths? That doesn’t seem off to you?
On top of that, the article had been updated on 8/2….here’s another article from MSN published 2 hours ago, but includes data from 8/8 from both California and Massachusetts on their breakthrough cases….
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... ar-AANsHhB
And here’s data from the article….
So the CDC, as of 8/2 is reporting 6,587 breakthrough cases, yet California and Massachusetts alone is reporting close to 68,000 as of 8/8.As of Aug. 8, 0.3% of Californians—or 57,491 fully vaccinated people out of 21.6 million full vaccinated individuals—have tested positive for the virus. Massachusetts last week said that 0.2% people in the state—or 9,969 people out of the 4.3 million who have been fully vaccinated—have reported breakthrough infections, according to media reports. About 450 of those individuals were hospitalized, and 105 people died.
Edit: While I still do question the amount of breakthrough cases resulting in death, I wasn’t questioning the math on that. I’m questioning the fact that CNN/CDC we’re basically saying that nearly EVERY breakthrough case resulted in a hospitalization…or that’s how that sentence reads to me.
There it states:
For the week of August 9-15, the average daily COVID-19 case rate among unvaccinated Californians is 51 per 100,000 and the average daily COVID-19 case rate among fully vaccinated Californians is much lower at 7.6 per 100,000.
So 75k vaccinated cases in California since January 1st. According to https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart there have been 1,811,332 Covid cases in California since then.Between January 01, 2021 and August 15, 2021 in California: Out of over 21.9 million fully vaccinated individuals, 75,135 post-vaccination cases (0.3%) have been identified.
So In 2021 California had 1,736,332 Unvaccinated cases and 75,135 vaccinated cases.
So 95.8% of cases have been attributed to unvaccinated individuals. For the above week of August, where over 50% of individual are vaccinated in California, 87% of cases are attributed to unvaccinated individuals. (I'm averaging them even though the vaccinated/unvaccinated population isn't split 50/50. But California had more vaccinated individuals during August 9-15, so this uneven average is actually helping the unvaccinated numbers)
Let's say reporting is off by 50% and it's really 11.4 per 100k unvaccinated and 47.2 per 100k unvaccinated. Statistically, 50% variance like this would be an unheard-of misrepresentation of data. So now we're giving the unvaccinated numbers help by averaging at 50/50 when there are more unvaccinated individuals AND we're giving them a 50% margin of error.
That means 80.5% of cases are from unvaccinated individuals and 19.45% from vaccinated individuals.
So even if we skew the math to give unvaccinated ratios a huge advantage that statistically makes no sense, we still come to the conclusion that 80% of cases between August 8th and August 15th (there were 85k documented cases in California during this timespan, which is a significant sample size).
So the numbers tell us a vast overwhelming majority of transmissions come from unvaccinated individuals.
Let's say the numbers are even more off and we double that random number and say vaccinated transmission in California was 22 per 100k, but we extrapolate that over a 100% vaccinated population. That means California would have had 17,000 infections in California and not 85,000.
So even if all the vaccination numbers are off by double what the stats are showing us. If 100% of the population were vaccinated right now, we would have 20% of the infection rates in California that we have right now.
This is i think where the crux of the disagreement on this forum comes from. Even when we skew the numbers to a point that the current statistics are unfathomably wrong, the numbers we have show that the unvaccinated are overwhelmingly the reason for the continuation of the virus at the rate that it currently is at.cardinalkarp wrote: ↑August 21 21, 1:32 pmThe main issue I have is the blaming of the unvaccinated for the continuation of the virus, it’s just not based in reality IMO.
The equivalent of this is the mainstream media/consensus being that 1+1 = 2 and the data being mathematical proofs that show 1+1 = 2. It feels like you are trying to have an opinion on statistics.
Using numbers, your argument honestly boils down to: "1+1=2 is just not based in reality IMO. 1+1=3."
I know that sounds harsh and like i'm attacking you, but i honestly am not intending to. It feels like yourself and others who are not sold on the impact of the vaccine are instead arguing that we as collection of governments and medical/scientific communities do not have the correct tabulation and evidence to prove the vaccination equivalent of 1+1=2. And that you can't trust the equivalent of a mathematical proof that shows that vaccinations are as effective/safe as all of the data say they are.
In my opinion, that is a completely different argument. The data cannot be argued with, but if you don't trust how the data was curated and the accurate of the data being used to draw those conclusions, then arguing with data really doesn't hold much weight.
It's like using scriptures in the Bible to prove to an atheist that God exists. If you don't trust the source material, using the source material as an argument is moot point.
I think this is why the bash-on-the-people-who-don't-trust-the-vaccine trend that is going on in this thread is a complete waste of time. It feels what we're disagreeing on and what we're arguing about are two different things.
